Supreme Court Will Strike Down Roe v Wade

[CountValentine]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/she-could-be-the-next-governor-of-arizona-where-her-miscarriage-is-now-a-crime/ar-AA10h7EH?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=867b99a455354598bcc461cd6649fbc2

[imayid2]

Got it. I thought you were also concerned about states that were not as strict as Jewish law.

I would be happier if they were more in line with Jewish law. I don’t like the fact that babies are killed for birth control purposes.

[imayid2]

(Dare I say "a baby step on the road to personhood"?)

I finally tracked down the amicus brief Agudas Israel filed in 1989. It's very interesting. Notable points are how they urge the court to recognize a constitutional right to abortion when the mother life is in danger, and how they vehemently oppose Missouri's conferral of personhood upon an unborn baby.
The brief can be read here:
https://www.jlaw.com/Briefs/webster7.html
This is the summary

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Like the court below, Agudath Israel of America believes that the Missouri legislature exceeded its constitutional authority in finding that human life begins at conception. We arrive at this conclusion, however, by a totally different route.

I. In our view, Roe v. Wade was decided incorrectly and should be overruled. In most cases, where the constitutional source of the claimed right to abortion is the due process right of privacy developed in Roe, 410 U.S. at 152-53, the right to abortion should not be accorded the status of a "fundamental" right. Accordingly, a legislative measure designed to restrict or prohibit abortion should generally be upheld even in the absence of any "compelling" state interest for the measure, so long as there is a rational basis for the legislation.

II. There are times, though, when a woman's claimed right to an abortion may be grounded not only in her due process right of privacy, but also in her First Amendment right freely to exercise her religion. In such cases, access to abortion is indeed a right that is "fundamental."

III. In developing public policy to regulate abortions, it is not necessary for a state to "find" that life begins from the moment of conception; whether human life is present in actuality or only in potential, a state's interest in protecting the fetus is sufficient to justify abortion regulation.

Nor is it constitutionally permissible for a state to make such a finding. Defining human life as beginning from the moment of conception places the state's imprimatur upon a particular religious belief, in an area that has been the subject of considerable theological and doctrinal dispute. There is a fundamental distinction between defining human life, an inherently theological matter beyond the competence or authority of secular legislative bodies; and regulating human conduct, a secular governmental prerogative regardless of theological perspectives on human life.

This distinction is far from academic. For if a state legislature has the authority to define human life as beginning from the moment of conception, then it is at least arguable that from that moment the fetus is a "person" for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, entitled to due process of law before being deprived of life or liberty -- presumably even in cases where the fetus' continued development would endanger the mother's life. "f the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother's condition is the sole determinant, does not the [preservation of maternal life] exception appear to be out of line with the [fourteenth] amendment's command?" Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. at 157 n.54.

This conundrum can best be avoided by prohibiting legislative bodies from conferring human status -- "personhood" -- upon fetuses. The establishment clause provides ample basis for such a prohibition.

[aygart]

I would be happier if they were more in line with Jewish law. I don’t like the fact that babies are killed for birth control purposes.

You are trying too hard to thread the needle. The point is not to try to get laws that meet the Jewish guidelines. There cannot be a legal standard of "Ask a shaila to the gadol hador". The interest expressed by the gedolim over the years was to advocate against abortion on demand. There was no attempt to create torah guidelines in the law. There was an equally, and possibly more, important interest in ensuring the availability of the procedure to preserve the life of the mother. The only way to ensure this without interference is to enshrine the legality when there is a non-trivial threat to the mother's health and well being. This is a type of exception they have advocated for.

[imayid2]

You are trying too hard to thread the needle. The point is not to try to get laws that meet the Jewish guidelines. There cannot be a legal standard of "Ask a shaila to the gadol hador". The interest expressed by the gedolim over the years was to advocate against abortion on demand. There was no attempt to create torah guidelines in the law. There was an equally, and possibly more, important interest in ensuring the availability of the procedure to preserve the life of the mother. The only way to ensure this without interference is to enshrine the legality when there is a non-trivial threat to the mother's health and well being. This is a type of exception they have advocated for.

I agree to your general point of course. Not sure why you think otherwise. My comments analyzing state laws to see their potential to conflict with Halacha isn’t at odds to what you’re saying.
“Non trivial” can be abused by a doctor not acting in good faith. So I question if it would do enough to stop abortion on demand, and if the alternate language poses a threat to ensuring it’s availability when the mothers life is in danger.

[aygart]

I agree to your general point of course. Not sure why you think otherwise. My comments analyzing state laws to see their potential to conflict with Halacha isn’t at odds to what you’re saying.
“Non trivial” can be abused by a doctor not acting in good faith. So I question if it would do enough to stop abortion on demand, and if the alternate language poses a threat to ensuring it’s availability when the mothers life is in danger.

Of course they can be abused just like any other law. It would then be up to prosecutors to enforce it. It will stop abortion on demand because there is some level of answering that is required. Some may occur anyhow but not on the same scale. Murders also happen even though there re laws against them. More restricitn laws are likely to cause hesitation.

[imayid2]

Of course they can be abused just like any other law. It would then be up to prosecutors to enforce it. It will stop abortion on demand because there is some level of answering that is required. Some may occur anyhow but not on the same scale. Murders also happen even though there re laws against them. More restricitn laws are likely to cause hesitation.

Fair enough.
I can agree to that point from a Jewish perspective that such terminology accomplishes enough with zero risk to the mother. But it’s understandable why pro life Indiana lawmakers would see that as insufficient protection against invalid abortion.
Agudas Yisroel while consistently advocating the overturning of RVW obviously understands that some States will be more restrictive than what to us would be the perfect balance. IMO it’s obvious that that wasn’t enough of a factor to not oppose it. Indiana’s bill is a perfect example of that. And it’s because סוף כל סוף there is very little chance that such a bill will cause undue harm to the mother. You can be sure they will come out forcibly against a dangerously restrictive bill (like the other ones that were proposed in some states but have zero chance of passing). They have persistently done so.

[aygart]

Fair enough.
I can agree to that point from a Jewish perspective that such terminology accomplishes enough with zero risk to the mother. But it’s understandable why pro life Indiana lawmakers would see that as insufficient protection against invalid abortion.
Agudas Yisroel while consistently advocating the overturning of RVW obviously understands that some States will be more restrictive than what to us would be the perfect balance. IMO it’s obvious that that wasn’t enough of a factor to not oppose it. Indiana’s bill is a perfect example of that. And it’s because סוף כל סוף there is very little chance that such a bill will cause undue harm to the mother. You can be sure they will come out forcibly against a dangerously restrictive bill (like the other ones that were proposed in some states but have zero chance of passing). They have persistently done so.

Restricting a woman from having a potentially life saving procedure can be the next constitutionally protected right.

[imayid2]

Restricting a woman from having a potentially life saving procedure can be the next constitutionally protected right.

Does not sound like that would be upheld the way DOBBS is written. The justices specifically pointed out that Mississippi law allows abortion in cases where the mothers life is at risk in explaining why they found this law as meeting the threshold of “legitimate state interests”.
Besides, even before Roe was overturned states had the authority to make such laws later on in the pregnancy. They didn’t. I’m not sure why you think this decision changes that.

[imayid2]

I support SCOTUS decisions. I also support Stare Decisis. I find myself between a rock and a hard place.

Do you support the courts decision in Brown vs Board of Ed? Do you think Stare Decisis should’ve stopped it?

[CountValentine]

Do you support the courts decision in Brown vs Board of Ed? Do you think Stare Decisis should’ve stopped it?

Yes
No

[imayid2]

Yes
No

So what’s different about this case that it has you concerned?

[CountValentine]

So what’s different about this case that it has you concerned?

This is my understanding. In BvBOE they produced evidence that separate but equal did not work.
In RvW it was the same stuff rehashed. They overturned it because they didn't like original ruling.

[imayid2]

This is my understanding. In BvBOE they produced evidence that separate but equal did not work.
In RvW it was the same stuff rehashed. They overturned it because they didn't like original ruling.

That is fair. Though I'm dubious if those railing about this would be ok if separate but equal did actually work.
And although you may be technically correct in terms of the language of BvBOE, it is clear that their disagreement with the very idea of separate but equal, played a major role.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education

While all but one justice personally rejected segregation, the judicial restraint faction questioned whether the Constitution gave the court the power to order its end. The activist faction believed the Fourteenth Amendment did give the necessary authority and were pushing to go ahead. Warren, who held only a recess appointment, held his tongue until the Senate confirmed his appointment.
Warren convened a meeting of the justices, and presented to them the simple argument that the only reason to sustain segregation was an honest belief in the inferiority of Negroes. Warren further submitted that the court must overrule Plessy to maintain its legitimacy as an institution of liberty

[CountValentine]

Let me add about RvW. One thing that did change from the original ruling is the advancement of medicine. We found out a fetus can survive sooner. I would be all for them ruling no abortions after xx weeks with overturning RvW.

[imayid2]

Let me add about RvW. One thing that did change from the original ruling is the advancement of medicine. We found out a fetus can survive sooner. I would be all for them ruling no abortions after xx weeks with overturning RvW.

That would undermine the whole argument the justices were making, which was that you can't infer morals from the constitution.

But the people of the various States may evaluate those interests differently. In some States, voters may believe that the abortion right should be even more extensive than the right that Roe and Casey recognized.

Our opinion is not based on any view about if and when prenatal life is entitled to any of the rights enjoyed after birth. The dissent, by contrast, would impose on the people a particular theory about when the rights of personhood begin. According to the dissent, the Constitution requires the States to regard a fetus as lacking even the most basic human right—to live—at least until an arbitrary point in a pregnancy has passed. Nothing in the Constitution or in our Nation’s legal traditions authorizes the Court to adopt that “‘theory of life.’” Post, at 8.

[CountValentine]

That would undermine the whole argument the justices were making, which was that you can't infer morals from the constitution.

That is fine, but they disregarded the original decision with their opinion. I don't want the court overturning decisions based on the makeup of the court.

I have three daughters. I would do everything in my power to talk them out of it if by the very slim chance they decided to get an abortion. I would offer to adopt and raise the child. With that being said the final decision should be theirs and not the governments!!!

[imayid2]

Let me add about RvW. One thing that did change from the original ruling is the advancement of medicine. We found out a fetus can survive sooner. I would be all for them ruling no abortions after xx weeks with overturning RvW.

With that being said the final decision should be theirs and not the governments!!!

?

[imayid2]

With that being said the final decision should be theirs and not the governments!!!

You are entitled to you opinion. So is everyone else. That's what this decision is all about, letting the voters decide.

[CountValentine]

You are entitled to you opinion. So is everyone else. That's what this decision is all about, letting the voters decide.

No it does not let the voters decide. It lets the politicians decide.
Would you be for a national vote on this issue?